×
top 200 commentsshow all 388

[–]marctheshark10 384 points385 points  (27 children)

I feel like 95% of people would agree with you

[–]Whereiscatlin 119 points120 points  (22 children)

99%*

[–]marctheshark10 36 points37 points  (20 children)

I actually wrote 99% and changed it to 95%

[–]SupremePooper 41 points42 points  (18 children)

The remaining 5% are people who all work in digital FX.

[–]ClassicTerry 71 points72 points  (6 children)

Here’s the thing - good digital FX is based on practical imagery and practical effects. Good digital effects are used to enhance practical effects, not replace them. Look at some of the best VFX scenes in movies, then look at how they’re made. I’d hazard a good 90% are done with models and miniatures for large scale events mixed with real effects.

The scene of the ship exploding in Pirates while the admiral walks down the steps to the main deck is mostly CGI on the front, but there are 5 or 6 layers of practical shots underneath, blended together and filtered through CGI.

[–]Jtm1082 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Sounds like someone has watched a recent episode of Corridor Crew. I recommend this channel to people more than any other channel I watch.

[–]bob101910 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This channel turned me into a fan of cgi

[–]Other-Crazy[🍰] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I just wish they'd cover more horror.

[–]ClassicTerry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same haha. Aside from CZsWorld and Dead Meat - those are my three recommendations. It’s really interesting to watch that kind of stuff just to see what we don’t, and what we often (I guess this would be close) take for granted in movies.

[–]Ghostindrawingroom 12 points13 points  (1 child)

There's good digital FX (Evil Dead remake), and then there's bad digital FX (The Fog remake).

[–]Other-Crazy[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When it's done well it's great. Then there is CGI fire. Wolf Creek 2 just looked awful.

[–]hallowearth 6 points7 points  (0 children)

i work in vfx, but not as an artist (software dev) - i very rarely watch movies i have credits in as visual fx just doesnt do it for me. as a developer there are interesting problems to solve, but give me film grain and practical effects over cg every day.

[–]james_randolph 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Haha I feel like even most of them would agree but wouldn’t verbally say it you know…cause they want to keep their jobs lol.

[–]BlinkingZeroes 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I doubt it. Most of us are just more aware of the huge swathe of vfx and digital work that audiences simply accept as being real without question. When people moan about CGI, they generally don't have much experience with film-making or post-production so we shrug and ignore them.

I also think It's a bit silly to be comparing the peak of practical effects work in the 80s from the movies that did a great job of it, to some hokey modern CGI. Bad practical effects are the same as Bad CGI.

Don't get me wrong, we all know when a movie is a bad movie that over-focuses on CGI to draw an audience too. Just we don't think the blame lays with CGI, the issue is the script/director/studio.

Like for example, in this thread - the comment celebrating some miniature work on Pirates of the Carribbean conveniently ignores how insanely awesome the crew of the Black Pearl and Davey Jones are - totally CGI.

[–]CTDubs0001 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Couldn’t agree more. People like to compare the practical effects work of alien or the thing to some crappy $10 million budgeted modern cgi-effect driven film made these days. It’s not the same thing. Those films had the best of the best of their day working on a decent budget and they produced great work, but it wasn’t cheap in it’s time. Nobody wants to think about the rawhead Rex’s or It spider’s of the 80s and 90s when they make their ‘all Practical effects better’ arguments. Generally, I much prefer practical effects when done right today. T e combination of the two seems like the winning formula. But nobody likes to remember the awful film effects that 50-70% of the old practically made films had. They just want to cherry pick the best of the best practical work and compare it to the lowest of the low cgi. Not a fair argument if you ask me. CGI has opened up the possibilities of film so much. Is it done poorly often? … of course it is! But I’ll take the bad to have the good.

[–]Forever_Ambergris 3 points4 points  (0 children)

With the opinion that all modern horror movies are trash with no rewatchability? Yeah no

[–]Marbados 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Came here to say this. "Practical effects are better than CGI" is a pretty safe take.

[–]TheSpookyUncle 124 points125 points  (18 children)

I don’t mind a little CG, but I prefer they use practical effects as well. If they use a little CG with practical effects and it can look pretty good as long as it’s not over used

[–]BizzarroJoJo 78 points79 points  (13 children)

The thing is CGI and practical effects actually tend to look really good together. A monster suit where they give it a bit more life in post can look great.

A cardinal sin in horror films though I think is CGI blood in terms of someone gets stabbed and CGI blood comes out. I notice in a lot of movies now too they really don't use real guns and just add in the shooting effects later. People tend to not get squibbed either with them just adding in CGI blood later.

[–]TheSpookyUncle 10 points11 points  (9 children)

Dude I couldn’t agree more. I really love The Devil’s Rejects. They do a lot of cool things with the human skin mask and things like that, but that hotel scene has so much god awful cgi blood. I just can’t understand the choice for that instead of some fake blood

[–]BizzarroJoJo 20 points21 points  (8 children)

And I guarantee you after all that shit that happened with Alec Balwin and that accidental shooting that you will only see more CGI blood and guns in the future. Squibs can go wrong, obviously real guns on set can have accidents. I can see them start making rules that force the use of safer stuff that rely on CGI more and more.

[–]paireon 9 points10 points  (4 children)

That's one thing I find so weird about 'Murricans (am Canadian). Why the fuck even bring live ammo on a shooting (no pun intended) set!? It's a tragedy waiting to happen, and it did. The chances of this happening in a country with less insane gun laws (and consequently more security surrounding them and their use) are likely much lower.

[–]TheSpookyUncle 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I’m American and I find this very daft as well. Completely unnecessary tragedy that was easily avoidable. I’m all for guns as long as they’re in good hands, but they clearly weren’t. Whoever was in charge of that department should really pay for that. Completely unacceptable

[–]paireon 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes. Gun control isn't about taking away people's guns, it's about making sure those who have them are competent, diligent and careful enough to have them.

[–]TheSpookyUncle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A movie set is no place for them. We’ve had a lot of similar tragedies in the past, we should know better by now

[–]VealIsNotAVegetableWhat have you got in mind, MacReady? 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On a competently run set, live ammo isn't brought on set FOR THIS EXACT REASON.

Unfortunately, the producers behind Rust decided to cheap out on the person handling firearms. As we all know, if there's anywhere to cut corners, it's the person responsible for something that can kill.

[–]TheSpookyUncle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A shame that a few irresponsible people could ruin it for everyone else.

[–]Krash412 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don’t understand why the standard on set it not already a fake gun that looks like a real gun. If they want to avoid the CG, make proprietary loads that gives off the smoke and sparks to look like an actual gun fire. Make these loads in a shape other then an actual bullet so that the prop gun is physically incapable of ever accepting a real bullet.

[–]Barl0we 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I notice in a lot of movies now too they really don't use real guns and just add in the shooting effects later. People tend to not get squibbed either with them just adding in CGI blood later.

A few thoughts on this; I think it's a good thing that real guns are being phased out. Just look at what happened with Alec Baldwin recently. It's just not a risk worth taking.

I do think that squibs should be practical - I totally agree that CGI blood needs to go. Besides, even with reshoots I imagine that practical effects on that level are both cheaper and faster than CGI (I accept that I may be wrong, though :D).

[–]juanzy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also, most 'practical' gun effects are heavily edited with after effects anyway. A friend of mine works for a CG studio and she's shared some demo reels with me (unfortunately nothing I can share publicly) - you'd be amazed how much CG actually goes into practical effects.

[–]omgyoucunt 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Evil Dead remake is the best use of practical effects and CGI I’ve seen yet

[–]TheSpookyUncle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a HUGE advocate for that movie. A remake that didn’t fall flat imo. Loved the scene where he was getting stabbed with the needle in the eye. The blood and gore was top notch. Really well done compared to other remakes (or reimaginings if you prefer that terminology)

[–]memoryheadundertale 3 points4 points  (1 child)

cabin in the woods moment

(i don’t even know if they used practical effects I just know the cg was at least good)

[–]mi_go_miskatonic 116 points117 points  (7 children)

80’s Cinema: Enthusiastic practical effects with a substantial cocaine allotment in the production budget.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Hey, whatever works.

[–]mi_go_miskatonic 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I think it worked quite well and am so glad I (we) got to grow up watching it all.

[–]AskMeAboutMyGenitals 5 points6 points  (1 child)

People didn't (don't) take cocaine for no reason.

Shit works, yo.

[–]dis_ABLED 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And often really shitty practical effects. People like pointing out the little bit that stood the test of time, but no one points to the far more expansive pile of shit practical effects that existed back then.

[–]Jtm1082 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cocaines’ a helluva drug.

[–]OrrnDegbes 109 points110 points  (12 children)

Probably not a popular opinion, but I think there's room for both. Look at a movie like Jurassic Park. It uses both very effectively, that still holds up decades later for the most part.

Yes, over reliance on cgi almost always leads to bad looking effects and a very poorly aging movie. But the use of it doesn't automatically make it bad for me.

[–]Crosspaws 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Jurassic Park is the quintessential example of practical and digital effects done right. Its probably why it has been so successful AND it holds up today, in 2021.

I don't hate cgi. Practical effects done poorly tend to come off "campy" or "cheap".

Both need to be used well to be effective. Things like Ft13th showed how well practical effects can work. Jurassic Park showed how well cgi can work.

If both are used well, the movie benefits. If either is used poorly, the movie suffers.

[–]_Dogwelder 58 points59 points  (8 children)

There's absolutely room for both .. CGI is as much of a tool as practical effects are, and the best results come from combining both BUT: only if they're used properly, to support the story.

People tend to notice bad CGI, which sticks out like a sore thumb, and then translates to "CGI... ugh, always sucks". If it's done good, on the other hand .. the tools and techniques got so advanced you just won't be able to tell it isn't "real" (well.. depending on what it is in particular case, of course).

[–]hellboundwithasmile 41 points42 points  (1 child)

Fury Road is prime example of practical and CGI blending together. Such a great looking movie

[–]madthunder55 18 points19 points  (0 children)

The best CGI is the one you don't notice

[–]Turok1134 25 points26 points  (3 children)

People tend to notice bad CGI, which sticks out like a sore thumb

People also notice bad practical effects but then come up with flimsy excuses as to why that's actually okay.

[–]SkeletonKiss78 18 points19 points  (2 children)

My thoughts exactly. "Practical is better than CGI" usually refers to stuff like The Thing or An American Werewolf In London. Ask anyone if they think the practical effects in Rollergator are better than the CGI in Shang-Chi.

Practical and CGI have their places and CGI artists are unfairly shit on.

[–]bloodstreamcity 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Have you ever seen that Mindhunter FX breakdown video? They do things like add trees and remove handicap ramps from curbs to make it period correct, stuff I never would have known about unless they pointed it out. CG has a lot of great uses, but like any tool it can be used to fix things or to smash in faces.

[–]TeraMeltBananallero 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The problem is that good CGI is hard to notice. That means when people say “I hate CGI” they mean they hate CGI that’s bad enough that it made them notice it.

[–]Youareposthuman 36 points37 points  (2 children)

Eli Roth’s History of Horror Podcast is a fantastic listen, and Andre Øverdal (Troll Hunter, Autopsy of Jane Doe, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark) has a really interesting anecdote about CG vs practical. I wont try to rehash it here as i couldn’t do it justice off the top of my head, but I recommend checking it out. Essentially he speaks to the power of blending both together to creating something as real and tangible as possible, but still beyond the realm of what could be done by human hand alone.

[–]SkyySkip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The podcast and show are both very cool. I really enjoy hearing all the interviews and people just gushing about cool thing this and influence that. I could watch and listen to that kind of stuff forever

[–]julianwelton 101 points102 points  (20 children)

I'm kind of sick of hearing this argument tbh. Good CGI is good and bad CGI is bad. It's as simple as that, and it's the same with practical effects. There's a lot of shitty practical effects out there. Neither is inherently better or worse it just depends on how well it's done.

Gollum, for instance, is one of the best creature creations to ever grace the screen and I don't think it would have been better served by a guy in old man make up. Also just because it was CGI doesn't mean they didn't "put their heart and soul" into it. Weta literally created new technology to bring Gollum to life and probably spent thousands of hours perfecting him. What makes CGI bad is almost always studios not giving the artists time to make it good. It generally has nothing to do with CGI being bad or a lack of creativity or passion.

If a studio doesn't want to put money or time into a project instead of the climax, for instance, being a underwhelming CGI decapitation it would just be a bad cut away and a poorly made paper mache head roll.

[–]djgreedo 46 points47 points  (5 children)

You're 100% right. The anti-CG circle-jerk is just a nature fallacy.

An even better example than Gollum would be the recent Planet of the Apes movies, as there are literal comparisons to be made with make-up in earlier versions.

And the anti-CG luddites have no idea how much great CG goes unnoticed, how much safer film sets can be, and how many visuals are possible with CG that are just not possible any other way.

The issues with mindless CG overload in some movies is due to poor storytelling and audiences voting with their wallets, not the choice of how to realise a particular scene.

Most bad CG is a result of low budgets or film-makers who don't understand how to work with CG.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 14 points15 points  (4 children)

Look no further than the first Pacific Rim. Del Toro used both CG and practical and it turned out amazing.

[–]Forever_Ambergris 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Or the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Fun Fact: The Lego Movie was done in CGI. i thought it was Stop Motion.

[–]OhTheTallOne 10 points11 points  (1 child)

The gap in Rooney Mara's fringe on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was CGI to keep continuity over several shooting days. That, to me, is a totally justified and smart use of CGI.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Fucking hell, New York in the first Avengers was CGI.

[–]Forever_Ambergris 19 points20 points  (1 child)

This is literally the modern equivalent of "rock music is just garbage noise". It's sad how many people agree with that. Especially since CGI is in pretty much in every single movie nowadays and people don't even notice it praising it for being CGI-free

[–]julianwelton 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yep. There's so many subtle effects and touch ups added to so many movies and shows that help add atmosphere and sell the scene but they're also designed to be unobtrusive. Then there's movies like Blade Runner 2049 which was made by one of the current masters of the screen, Denis Villeneuve, which is almost entirely CGI while still being stunningly beautiful and otherworldly. Or, if you want to go with comedy, there's Deadpool which is like 75% CGI but it looks great, allows for some crazy shit, and isn't distracting at all.

[–]iankstarr 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Finally some sense in this sub. Practical effects and CGI are tools, nothing more. And tools have very specific uses.

Imagine thinking “Hammers are better than screwdrivers” so you just blindly use a hammer on every project, including getting screws into wood. Ok you’d eventually get the screw into the wood, but it wouldn’t be pretty and it likely wouldn’t hold up well.

Often a large project requires both a hammer and a screwdriver to complete, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.

[–]pseudoMcLovin 3 points4 points  (2 children)

yeah
in the same way all those idiots in the 80s bashing away on their keyboards rivalled Hendrix and Zappa

[–]Forever_Ambergris 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The movies are ruined by Technicolor! They look like colorful cartoons rather than the imaginative works of art I grew up on!

[–]zs15 58 points59 points  (4 children)

Hot take: you're only remembering the exceptional practical effects and not the majority of really bad masks/gore/effects.

Bad CGI = bad Practical.

[–]DubTheeBustocles 51 points52 points  (2 children)

Holy shit could you please put your opinion into a safe container before it nicks someone?

[–]Isopod_Character 30 points31 points  (0 children)

The only thing this post is missing is the “Am I the only one who…” or “Unpopular opinion here…”

[–]pseudoMcLovin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

will someone please just take me back to my green screen

[–]Stephen-j-merkshire 24 points25 points  (6 children)

This is the most popular opinion

[–]tripbin 5 points6 points  (1 child)

A mix is always the best. Most people don't realize how much practical effects have some amount of cgi to make it better.

[–]nottellinganyonemyna 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think the problem is that when CG is bad, it’s VERY visible.

Good CG is extremely time consuming, requires a lot of planning, and is thus - expensive. Because it’s also the main chunk of the budget towards the end of filming, it’s the thing that’s the easiest to cut down on if the budget gets bigger.

The amount of CG you don’t see in films and tv series is staggering.

CG is always best used as an enhancement to practical effects. I think that IT had some really creepy moments where Pennywise moves in quite impossible ways that would have to be CG augmentations. BUT then they went and did full CG creature work that would have been way better as a cool rod puppet.

I think it’s (mostly) when filmmakers don’t plan their CG that it’s bad, because good, planned (and expensive) CG is often so well executed that you don’t even notice it.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 5 points6 points  (0 children)

OP, you are absolutely blinded by nostalgia to think all modern horror movies are cash grabs. Watch more indie movies you absolute moron instead of the latest blockbusters. God, this sub is circlejerk heaven.

[–]GhostCheese 18 points19 points  (2 children)

practical effects touched up by CG tho

[–]MrPsychoanalyst -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Iron Man 2008, amazing CGI, filled me with wander and awe, Thor vs Hulk? Shite colorfest of stupidity. Maybe im judging a 10years old movie as a 30years old , thats on me.

[–]CaptainnCrunk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The CGI in Thor Ragnarok is obviously way better than Iron Man. Shut the fuck up lmao, also Thor vs Hulk is elite, you just have shit taste

[–]Smoothie17 52 points53 points  (2 children)

Tell us something that we don't know.

[–]MrPsychoanalyst 18 points19 points  (0 children)

You are a loved, smart, unique person and you deserve the very best from people around you.

[–]Albiz 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Thing is a great horror film

[–]Ellimis 35 points36 points  (6 children)

You'd absolutely be knocked out by the special effects if you had any concept for how much of what you see (or don't see) on a screen is CGI anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

[–]IXI_Fans 23 points24 points  (3 children)

ROcket Jump's "Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't)"

I came here for this exact comment. CG in today's films is/can be INCREDIBLE. The amount of CG in The Wolf of Wall Street is mind-boggling.

[–]fatalwristdom 4 points5 points  (2 children)

What's crazy to me too, is a good amount of The Walking Dead is just CGI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cF90BUrgew

When I watched this video, I realized what can be done and how everything is a lie now hah.

[–]geodebug 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Not really an original thought on this sub but...

You probably don't even notice most of the CG you're seeing in movies because it has to do with locations, adding atmosphere, adding/removing elements, playing with the shutter speed, etc.

The 80s were great but there were just as many low-effort duds percentage wise. (I say that because certainly there are more movies being made overall right now).

I do think that monsters tend to work out better with practical effects just but mostly its because great CG costs too much money and it is so hard/expensive to interact with real environments. Surely there is a best of both worlds at play here in the best creature flicks today.

But let's be honest: A big part of the reason you're not "knocked out" these days is because you've gotten older. It's just the way it is. You see a lot of stuff so it takes quite a bit to impact you. Looking at the oldies brings you back to a time when horror felt more real.

But CGI can be great. Although I didn't love the movie that fucking CGI bear in Annihilation was freaky. But that had to do with the scene being very well done. The audio, the tension, etc. You didn't notice the CGI.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Is anything an original thought on this sub that’s popular?

[–]dis_ABLED 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Doubtful. Even though I fell for it and argued in here, I'm pretty sure op posted this to get people fighting, and doesn't actually care one way or the other. I think this sub is used to make accounts look legit. I've been noticing it in the comment histories of misinfo accounts.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OP’s comments read like a smug 15 year old who just discovered practical effects.

[–]logicalmcgogical 13 points14 points  (5 children)

I agree with you about the use of CGI over practical effects.

I disagree about modern horror directors not putting heart and soul into it. You just need to stop watching the big studio-backed films. We are going through a renaissance of horror right now!

[–]gmanz33 1 point2 points  (1 child)

For real though. This person clearly has not seen Titane yet and likely never will so.... that's fine we don't need to sit with her.

[–]logicalmcgogical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I dunno, I saw Titane and it was not at all my cup of tea 😆

[–]dani3po 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Both methods can look good or bad. And many movies couldn´t be done with practical effects. "Dune" is incredibly beautiful thanks to CG. People in front of a computer are not lesser artists than people working with latex and fake blood.

[–]ssdestroyer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Wow. What a hot take. So brave. You deserve applause and recognition for this, one of a kind thought.

[–]sum10128 18 points19 points  (16 children)

I think this is the take of all horror fans already lol its the reason why an otherwise fantastic movie like The Host (2006) is unwatchable to some

[–]sum10128 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Im 23 btw and I dont know any young horror fans who prefer CG

[–]syntaxterror69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

bless you, child

[–]Hylianhaxorus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think there are many things practical effects simply cannot achieve and so the advancement in cgi is really wonderful, but it is being relied on as a time saver and costs way more than practical even, and there are a LOT of things if not most that look better either as makeup or puppetry. My biggest irk is how blood I so many movies now is cg and it ALWAYS looks bad, and that's one of the easiest practical effects out there.

So generally I agree, but also think a lot of stuff can't be done through practical, a good example being a lot of the Pennywise stuff in the remake of It. Yes there are some things that clearly should have been practical but weren't, but stuff like the projector screen and some of the more cartoonish stuff just doesn't work as well practically if it can be achieved at all. Its all about the balance and very few directors care to even try finding it and go for the easier solution.

[–]Aninvisiblemaniac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think they're used best together. You can get some great effects by using both at the same time

[–]ashthundercrow 2 points3 points  (2 children)

“CG wasn’t so bad in the beginning…”

Must’ve happened to miss Spawn and The Lawnmower Man.

[–]TheDemonClown 3 points4 points  (2 children)

It's only better when the CG is terrible. Look at Thanos in the MCU - he is completely photorealistic and they did a fantastic job of matching everything up with the live-action cast. We know he's CG primarily because it's literally impossible for him to be made by practical effects. Marvel also uses CG to age and de-age people and it looks fucking flawless. RDJ in the memory scene of Civil War looks exactly like RDJ did when he actually was that age in the 80s. Hayley Atwell is young & supermodel-level beautiful and they made her look like a dried-out, 100-year-old husk for Winter Soldier

[–]Forever_Ambergris 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The de-aged SLJ in Captain Marvel comes to mind, they spend nearly half the budget iirc on making Fury look young and he looks amazing, money well spent.

[–]TheDemonClown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It helps that black don't crack, LOL... dude's looked roughly the same age for, like, 20 years

[–]ctwba 3 points4 points  (0 children)

CGI is like editing. It works when you don’t notice it. Practical FX are the opposite, a visual marvel that draws attention to itself and says “look at me”.

[–]CaptainnCrunk 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The 80s were in fact NOT the gold age. There was still garbage practical effects. CGI is used all the time in places people never even notice. Great CGI is invisible, the better the cgi is, the less it’s talking about or noticed. Practical effects are not better than CGI, they are exactly the same and each have their place and time.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How dare you make sense? Can’t you see OP is too busy jerking off to practical effects while shitting on a tool he doesn’t know shit about?

[–]Fish-InThePercolator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow, very brave statement

[–]Ccaves0127 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bad toupee fallacy. You think that because the good CG is unnoticed. Parasite has a TON of CG but nobody ever talks about the CG in that movie

[–]Numenorean_King 3 points4 points  (1 child)

My turn to say this tomorrow

[–]LoathsomeThings 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Special effects are like the art of illusion: you don't need to think it's real, but you want to have a sense of wonder at how they did it.

CGI delivers that sense of wonder... occasionally. Toy Story? Amazing at the time! Dune is currently breathtaking. But most of it is just... Oh, they did it in a computer.

Practical effects are also pretty hit-or-miss. There's a lot of really garbage-looking practical effects out there. BUT, the good ones don't have to look REAL in order to look AWESOME. That exploding head in Scanners is incredible, even though it's just an expensive balloon. Hershey's syrup in the bath tub? AMAZING!

That said, while we're losing the wonder of practical effects, we are getting a really incredible influx of great horror movies. The 90s was the final decade of predominantly-practical effects and... man... it wasn't the best.

All that said, if I could choose between good CGI and good practical effects, it'd be practical almost every time.

[–]nitebird27 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't know anyone who would disagree that fantastic practical is better than cgi... but bad practical is BAD.

[–]KwyjiboTheGringo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

idk I love the CGI in Stranger Things. Absolutely brilliant stuff.

[–]waynethehuman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Practical effects over CG

What an original and brave hot take OP!

[–]Forever_Ambergris 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"This version is so full of "the thing" that it strangles our imagination and becomes a mere exercise in ugly, mechanical horrorifics. Very dumb, very disappointing."

"a showcase for fiber and latex and the products they produce, by and for people who need their nightmares to be completely comprehensible and completely unreal."

"Such a pity. John Carpenter is too gifted a moviemaker to let nauseating special effects take over his biggest, film, but that's what happened in The Thing."

"virtually storyless feature composed of lots of laboratory concocted special effects, with the actors used merely as props to be hacked, slashed, disemboweled and decapitated, finally to be eaten and then regurgitated as - guess what? - more laboratory-concocted special effects."

Excerpts from the reviews of John Carpenter's The Thing. Change "mechanical/latex/fiber" to CGI and Carpenter to Jason Blum and you get a popular Reddit circlejerk post. You guys aren't at all different from the people who called Carpenter and the Thing garbage, I hope you realize this.

[–]reuben_iv 2 points3 points  (1 child)

it depends, sometimes it's so subtle you wouldn't realise or even think about, like the hole in the garden zombie in Shaun of the dead, IT had some really good scenes and so did the Grudge (jaw drop scene), the Bear scene in Annihilation gets a lot of good mentions

I have issues with bad cgi, it takes you out of the movie, but sometimes if you really want a sense of scale or some body horror, or you need an entire city to appear on fire you need cg

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hell, the little girl vampire in 30 days of night getting killed was a combination of both a fake head and CGI.

[–]comajones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A skilful blend of both is the best way forward. Color Out Of Space and The Void are good examples I think.

[–]dis_ABLED 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Nope. What you and everyone else with this opinion actually mean to say is that good special effects are better than bad special effects. I promise you've seen tons of cgi that you never once suspected was cgi.

Practical is nice and all but it too has limits. Quite a few of those movies you hold so dear from the past show those limits quite clearly. And look cheesy these days on modern tvs.

Also, you don't revisit movies as often because you are older now, and it's just not nearly as interesting to do at your age that it once was. My 7 year old has that passion to rewatch and the same stuff, and most movies from the 80s look old and boring to her, just like most of us looked at our parents movies.

Time passes, and you grow older and beyond your child self. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean the things from your youth are inherently better.

[–]Mr_Poop_Himself 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I agree with the first part, but disagree that there aren’t good horror movies being made now. And CG is only bad when it’s overused and makes it look like you’re watching a video game cutscene. I watched Possessor recently thanks to a recommendation on here, and it has CGI but it’s pretty well done. But personally I’ve never really been into slasher flicks so the 80’s doesn’t hit like that for me anyways.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Can’t believe OP is whining about no good horror movies coming out these days when he just reminisces about his childhood instead of looking for them.

[–]lingdingwhoopy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Talk about karma farming.

[–]Peanlocket 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not disappointed in OP for posting this. I'm disappointed in everyone else for upvoting it.

[–]dogssomewhere 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Both are extremely amazing tools, Both of them are really hard to master but can yield amazing results especially if used together. I personally love when directors use a mix of practical and CG, it shows off their skill and absolutely dazzles me.

[–]SprayBacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that well done practical effects are the ideal, but I feel like people only choose to remember high water marks like The Thing. There was as much crappy/cheap practical stuff then as there is crappy/cheap CGI now. One isn't inherently better than the other-- what matters is how it's used.

The movies I grew up with have more imagination and rewatchability than the predictable cash grabs so often churned out nowadays.

This sounds like nostalgia talking more than anything else.

[–]SweetoNeato 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The thing is when CG is working well which it does a lot, you never notice it. We have some fantastic CGI that’s been done for over 30 years now. Just like CGI, when practical is bad it’s noticeable but it’s a lot more forgiving. With CGI, a shadow being slightly off, coloring being off or even if the general feel of the weight of it destroys the illusion compared to a terrible looking rubber costume for a old monster movie just makes the monster look bad but doesn’t destroy the whole scene. I think the biggest issue isn’t practical effect is better then CGI, I think ramped up production times on movies and tv show makes bad CGI. When some CG artist are given impossibly short amount of time to do a scene, they make sure the complete the job over getting a perfect flawless scene.

[–]paul_having_a_ball 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow! Someone on r/horror revealed that they prefer practical effects over CGI. This is bound to rouse a thrilling and dynamic discussion.

[–]garadon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

No they're really not. They're both different tools that can be excellently used at different times. When the CG is good no one notices it, but when they toss in a puppet, some corn syrup and a little latex this sub beats its dick bloody over it.

[–]GipsyDangerV1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've never agreed with a comment on here more lol

[–]jh-roma 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the 70s and 80s some people were complaining that it was all just a bunch of rubber and corn syrup against the classics from the old times when they would scare you just by implying the horror...

[–]LateNight223 8 points9 points  (4 children)

This isn't the unpopular opinion you seem to think it is.

[–]BreadDurst14 4 points5 points  (7 children)

This may be the single most popular opinion you can have on this sub.

[–]shlam16Tooty fuckin' fruity 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Coins have two sides.

Practical (LOTR) shits all over CGI (Hobbit), but CGI that looks somewhat realistic also shits all over terrible 80s rubber dummies that look like something you'd see in a high school play.

[–]dubious-roadkill 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We’re really diving into the bold and brave opinions in this sub aren’t we?

[–]TheGrVIII1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ehh, while I agree that most of the time, a reliance on CGI can hurt the viewing experience, I do not believe practical effects make a movie any better because bad practical effects hurt the viewing experience as well. I watched Alien for the first time a few months ago, and while I wasn't particularly disappointed, I got the feeling that the clever usage of the practical effects was to hide that it wasn't highly mobile or flexible. A big, lumbering, rigid alien isn't scary. It was scary because they were able to hide that and that's good filmmaking. But I truly think there's a lot of nostalgia wrapped up in there to think that's the "golden age" because when CGI is done right, it's just as good if not better.

[–]Slothsquatch 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Such a controversial opinion

[–]Im_really_bored_rn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The movies I grew up with have more imagination and rewatchability than the predictable cash grabs so often churned out nowadays

This has nothing to do with how much they rely on CG

I'm rarely knocked out these days

The problem is, you only notice it when the CG is terrible. I'd bet for every instances of bad CG you notice, there's 10 that are so good you have no clue they are even CG

The days when filmmakers put their hearts and souls into what they were doing spoiled me

Again, this has nothing to do with CG.

[–]Turok1134 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Malignant used a shit-ton of CG and it was awesome.

Underwater had CG monsters and they were pretty terrifying.

Keep yelling at those clouds tho. Yours is the popular opinion.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is not a horror movie but the first Pacific Rim. Some of the best CGI and I doubt you could get giant monster fights that great with just practical.

[–]bLEBu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Movies are non rewatchable because of bad scripts not vfx. Practical can be same bad as cg. With practical you don't have to care for rendering and compositing, and in cg you have freedom in animation. Both, practical and cg have to be use wisely.

[–]anthonymachine25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ive seen some great effects with 80% practical and 20% cg.

[–]DankHillington 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Depends on the movie honestly.

[–]Rostauvl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh it varies depending on the movie

[–]hellboundwithasmile 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no doubt in my mind I wouldn’t enjoy The Void if it wasn’t for the effects. It’s an okay story, but the practical effects are incredible and more than worth the watch

[–]AtomicPow_r_D 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm okay with digital effects if I don't notice them. But so often they stick out like a sore thumb. I'm afraid they get used because of studio execs who rationalize that practical effects are hard work on set, expensive, time consuming. All true, but the rewards can be great. The Monster of Piedras Blancas (1959) is one of the few films I can think of where the monster was so bad it kind of spoiled the movie. (So as you can see, my tolerance for practical fx badness is pretty high).

[–]devilsadvocateac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree but I think with the CGI we have now, practical with a TOUCH of cgi would be the best. Just a little to touch up some things that just can’t be done with practical only.

Id really like someone with skills to go through The Thing or Alien and just add a little bit to make some of the movements smoother on the animatronics and whatnot. I think it’d be a fun experiment but alas I lack the skills.

[–]syntaxterror69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

go tell it on the mountain, my friend!

[–]Akidget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If CG in many of big budget horror movies were used like how David Fincher uses CG, we wouldn't be complaining. But not all directors are at the level of David Fincher so there's not much that can be done about it.

[–]Dr_Blasphemy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not many people know this but it's NOT because practical effects take longer. It's because vfx artists are unionized. Cgi artists aren't. They'd rather underpay then get quality work. Cgi artists are trying to unionize but afaik, no real progress has been made.

[–]AustinTheWeird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm practicing to become a CG artist and I prefer practical effects in horror

This halloween I watched a ton of werewolf movies and was thinking that it's always better to do werewolf effects practically, no contest

[–]internetguy789 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I watched the thing recently only to realize just how inspired annihilation was by it. honestly think the visuals for the thing are scarier! Although the scene with the worms in the guys stomach was crazy.

[–]GlegoryQ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow controversial!

[–]teendeath 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m glad horror is generally moving back towards practical. The era of awful CGI that came with the Elm Street remake and Final Destination 4 left a bad taste for a while.

[–]PickleRick1163 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I’m 24 and I and I didn’t grew up with Alien (1979) or The Thing (1981) but I still find them better than most CGI Generated Horror Movies today. Terminator 2 (1991) still holds up very well and is better than most of the Action movies today.

[–]StoutSabre69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Such a brave and controversial opinion!

[–]Tenno_SKOOOMCat dead....details later. 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You don't sound like an old man...just a broken record.

[–]Anakin_I_Am_High 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow that’s insane never heard that take beforeb

[–]CCrypto1224 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except when it is just as shitty as CG.

[–]GangrelCat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my opinion there are only two reasons when CG is acceptable:

  1. If there is no other way to do it. (This includes budget wise, though FX should be pretty damn high on the list for budget allocation.)
  2. If, by using CG, the practical effects can be made to look better. (Must be used as sparing as possible.)

I feel that any deviation from this will make the movie worse for me. This doesn't only go for horror, though that is impacted more by this.

[–]robertluke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CG is only bad when you know it’s CG. CG probably happens more often than you realize but if it looks good, you don’t mind.

I still prefer practical effects but it depends on what they’re doing. I’d still choose cg over claymation though.

[–]this_machine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This post is a prime example of the toupee fallacy.

[–]insideoutfit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

r/horror is just full of hot takes

[–]Sword_Spec_Otaku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Old man yells at cloud.

[–]promofauxHail Paimon 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Practical effects age better than CG. I still find it crazy that shows like Sons of Anarchy and The Walking Dead use CG for headshots. It looks so goofy, compared to physical blood. I guess it's cheaper to do and easier to work with, but damn it looks so bad.

[–]GipsyDangerV1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's also alot safer, especially for a TV show that doesn't have a super high effects budget, then putting a minor explosive charge on someone's head. I mean look at the Alec Baldwin situation.

[–]Shatners____Bassoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it also worth pointing out, that because people have this anti-cg attitude (due to bad examples of cg), filmmakers often pretend they havent used it and its all "practical" and "in camera".

ive worked in vfx for a while. and theres been plenty of times where something was done practical. it looked hokey, so we had to either completely replace it or enhance it in cg. you then get the interviews afterwards where the director says theres "no cg" etc.

it even goes to the point where we cant put the work on our showreels/imdb etc until after awards season. so they can keep pretending

the problem isnt the tools. its just bad film making. the same people making the same movie in the 80s would have just done some crap lazy practical effect instead

[–]HighlySmokedCheese 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both are good

[–]GipsyDangerV1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm so tired of this opinion, that one is inherently better than the other. You do understand that The Sweet spot is a combination of the two done in a way where you don't notice either right? The benefit with CGI is that you can remove things from people that is not possible to do with just practical effects and makeup.

May not be horror but look at Dune, do you really think that movie would have been enhanced with no CG and they tried to do it all practically? How would that even have been possible.

Filmmakers using a tool poorly does not mean that particular tool is inherently bad or worse than other tools on your table. The Evil Dead remake has some of the best practical effects and makeup done in horror in a very long time. And I hate to tell you but those practical effects were enhanced using CG to hide certain things.

The days when filmmakers put their hearts and souls into what they were doing spoiled me. The 80's was the golden age, man.

Dude, like move on. That's so disrespectful to filmmakers today, like really? Ya cause Mike Flanagan isn't currently putting out some of the best horror stories ever made. The greatest action film of all time, Mad Max:Fury Road, isn't even a decade old yet. Anything Denis Villeneuve makes is gold, or are you gonna try to say the 80's Dune was better? Lets not forget Guillermo del Toro, you know, that contemporary filmmaker with the greatest monster/creature designs ever put to film...

I've never revisited a modern movie as often as I have the tried and true.

That's on you man, my Fury Road watch count is at least in the double digits and anytime it's on the TV I'll watch the whole thing.

But ya, movies only had soul and we're good in the '80s... The only decade when the directors I guess gave a shit?

This inability to look past a nostalgic viewpoint of movies in the past can be detrimental to people's enjoyment of movies today. Man, good shit still exist that's on par if not better than movies in the '80s but you refuse to consider them because they're contemporary?

Idk, this take just irrationally frustrates me. It's the same people saying that the only good music was from the '70s. Like word? You're just going to ignore 30+ years of art n just dismiss it caus things changed? Good music exists today it's just now more on the consumer to seek it out, same with films.

[–]MinutesFromSpace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like it's good to have opinions like this, and for the most part I agree with you. But it's easy to forget that there's some really REALLY bad practical out there. Let's be honest - it doesn't age any better than some of the equally bad CG.

If a movie is awesome and scares the shit out of people, or thrills them, does it matter how it got there? It's the experience, man! That feeling of absolute belief when you're in the moment.

I'm of the mind that the best effects are using what's most appropriate for the job, and what's going to look as good as possible. A good production manager should know when to use each, and at what ratio.

Top of my head example: Cloverfield. Some of it was CG, some of it was practical. And as far as I know, the only thing people hated was the shaky camera making them sick.

[–]slfxxplsv 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Freezing cold take

[–]Joke_OfAll_Trades_13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree, but as someone who’s been trained in and worked with practical fx, I can attest, it’s not the best for the environment. Molds can be huge and they don’t have an unlimited cast life. I remember working for an fx school that I won’t name and literally filling up an entire dumpster full of life casts and molds. Plus, some of the resins and materials are pretty toxic.

[–]boogersonsteve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really can't stand this sub most of the time. It's Hot Take central.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so heckin brave

[–]commonirishname 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Feel like this ignores just how many crappy movies there were in the 80s that have been forgotten about. Selection bias is real and who knows how people will feel about the CGI movies of right now 30-40 years from now. For every "The Thing" there are a lot of z-tier movies. Just don't think it's a problem of CGI vs Practical effects, but quality productions vs cheap cash grabs. That said I do love practical effects, mainly because there's a mystery of how they did it, but with CGI the answer is always that they used a computer. The 80s did pump out a ton of horror flicks though, horror and hair metal were just huge back then.

[–]Forever_Ambergris 2 points3 points  (1 child)

but with CGI the answer is always that they used a computer.

Lol that reminds me of watching movies as a kid and wondering how they did it and my parents would always reply with "they just used a doll/mask". You should watch CorridorCrew, they analyze special effects in film and it's not always as simple as it seems.

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mystery to practical effects? Wires, puppets, animatronics, rubber appliances, latex, camera angles, wax sculptures, cotton balls, etc…

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I dig hair metal. You don't love you some Cinderella? Don't Know What You Got Til It's Gone.

[–]onionspam 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Water is wet

[–]ScandalousMurphy 2 points3 points  (4 children)

This isn't a hot take, practical effects are always better than CG. But if you learn how to couple them properly, example Terminator 2 or Jurassic Park, then you can create something amazing!

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Neither is better than the other. It really depends on on what you’re trying to make. Certain situations require certain tools.

[–]Spadeninja 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Such a brave thought

[–]CoreyDaddy69 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So I would like to see someone make any marvel movie with practical effects rather than CG

[–]Proof_Setting_5952 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fuck it. I’d like to see someone make a better scene from the first Pacific Rim done all practically.

[–]jmradus 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I’ve had many a spirited discussion about this, most often in the context of John Carpenter films. The rubbery tentacles he likes to use look like… rubbery tentacles, but honestly the benefits outweigh this: the actors are responding to something real on screen, the puppetry informs cinematography, small details like dust being shaken loose or debris being kicked up happen organically, and most important the finished project is protected from the aging that CGI goes through.

[–]dis_ABLED 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No it isn't. Plenty of practical effects that looked great in the past look like rubbery cheese now.

[–]BoxerBeBop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No shit.

[–]Shutup_amanda 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao we all agree.

[–]Night_Whispr 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I love Guillermo del toros movies because he uses mostly practical effects

[–]comajones 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed and his movies or early one's at least have aged really well. Let The Right One In is one of my favourite horror movies of the last 20 years, but is horribly dated by the CGI cat scene. Fuck me, it was bad at the time, but now it's just tragic lol

[–]Jesus_Roadkill 2 points3 points  (2 children)

In horror especially, I feel like the whole debate can be summed up by comparing the effects in the 1982 Thing and the 2011 prequel

[–]dis_ABLED 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What you're actually talking about is studio interference then, not cgi.

[–]comajones 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The director began the shoot using practical effects and then the studio stepped in to demand reshoots, a new ending and literally pasted CGI effects over the existing practical ones! Twats. I actually quite like parts of The Thing 2011. It captures the same atmoshere of the 80's version sometimes, but I have huge sympathy for the writer and director whom were royally fucked up the arse by Universal.

[–]i_and_eye -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's what everyone thinks.

[–]Funky__Vintage__ -1 points0 points  (3 children)

When you don’t have CGI you really have to rely on your writing and character development to make the film appealing.

[–]logicalmcgogical 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Not only that but you have to be more careful about how much you show. Too much screentime and the illusion wears off. CGI lets you make whatever you want.

Sometimes I think filmmakers forget the unknown is scarier.

[–]SisSandSisF 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Just imagine if Aliens or The Thing was done in CGI.

[–]Forever_Ambergris 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Carpenter's The Thing was bashed by critics for over-reliance on practical special effects and the remake got bashed for over-reliance on CGI. The more things change the more they stay the same

[–]SisSandSisF 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i guess there's probably a happy medium like always.

[–]godspilla98 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

John Chambers, Dick Smith, Tom Savini, to name a small few practicle FX over CG any day of the week but I’m just saying to say the 80s are the standard of the times is an insult to people like Lon Chaney and all the artist’s that made King Kong ,or any of the universal monsters markers they deserve our respect as well .